And those meanings are?
Here are the verses in the New American Standard Bible:
"An overseer, then, must be above reproach,the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach..." (1 Tim 3:2)
"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,
6namely, if any man is above reproach, the (E)husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
7For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,
8but (M)hospitable, (N)loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,
9holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." (Titus 1:5-9)
I suppose you are trying to say these passages REQUIRE a pastor to be married. That would be odd, given that their author, Paul, was single, not to mention our Lord Himself, Jesus was also single. The more natural and logical meaning--given the single leaders in the early Church--is that pastors must not be polygamists....(or perhaps, divorced). The best Greek scholars I know of too, believe this is the case of the meaning of "husband of one wife."
No (conservative, evangelical) scholar I know of believes that these passages REQUIRE married clergy, nor do ANY of the (evangelical, conservative) denominations (be they Baptists, Bible, Presbyterian, Assembly of God, etc....)make that a requirement. John Stott (Anglican) and of course a number of other very successful pastors historically too, have also been single...
In fact the Apostle Paul recommended singleness as the preferred way to live, for those who can handle it--concerned for the things of the Lord--rather than the World, in 1 Cor. 7.
The idea that pastors must be married is NOTIONAL...in other words not biblically based, but, based on worldly "knowledge" projected onto the bible and the Church.
However it is a strong notion. I should know. I'm a single conservative/evangelical seminary graduate. This article is right on the money. Unless you want a job as a youth minister, congregations ONLY want a married pastor. I've had people tell me flat out that it's a non-negotiable requirement--even though they cannot build a legitimate biblical argument for it.
I've seen fellow seminary students desperately looking for wives too....and marrying, (in my opinion) not the best matches, because, after all, pastors must be married.
All this is rather sad. If people took the bible as it's written--fully, interpreted correctly--they'd be open the the pastorship of say, Paul, or Jesus...
I'm so glad you have resolved that question. As a student of Paul/Saul, I have never been convinced that he WAS NOT married. Indeed, most scholars would disagree with your statement, int hat, to be a member of the Sanhedrin, it was a requirement.
On what Scriptures do you post this definitive statement? Since you are a seminary student, you may want to do more research on your own, and deepend less on those "teachers" After all, those "teachers of the law" are the ones that had Jesus crucified!
...When Paul talks about being buffeted by a thorn in the flesh, he is in fact almost quoting passages from the LXX of Num. 33:55 and Josh. 23:13, where " thorns" which would buffet the eyes of Israel were the Canaanite tribes (cp. Ez. 28:24); and especially, in the context, their women. If they intermarried, those women and what they brought with them would be made by God as thorns in Israel's flesh. The implication could be that Paul had not driven out his Canaanites earlier, and therefore God gave them to Him as a thorn in the flesh, just as He had done to Israel earlier. There is fair reason to think that Paul had been married; he could not have been a member of the Sannhedrin and thus had the power to vote for the murder of the early martyrs unless he had been married and had children (Acts 26:10). His comment that he wished all men to be in his marital position (1 Cor. 7:8) has another slant in this case: he wished them to have had the marriage experience, but be in the single state. As a leading Pharisee, his wife would have been from an appropriate background. " ...for whom I have suffered the loss of all things" would then have been written with a sideways glance back at his wife, children he never saw... all that might have been. In gripping autobiography, Paul relates the innocent days when (as a child) he lived without the knowledge of law and therefore sin. But then, the concept of commandments registered with him; and this " wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (Rom. 7:8). " Concupiscence" is a conveniently archaic word for lust; and in the thinking and writing of Paul, the Greek epithumia is invariably used in a sexual context. - http://www.aletheiacollege.net/bl/14-11Pauls_Thorn_In_The_Flesh.htm
Paul was never a Pastor and never tried to be one, he was a missionary and Apostle. Jesus is God, He can do whatever He wants.
To be the Bishop of a church requires a wife and children. period.